From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Range Types, discrete and/or continuous |
Date: | 2010-11-01 20:39:14 |
Message-ID: | 1288643954.11114.17.camel@jdavis-ux.asterdata.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 20:36 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> > Would you be comfortable writing that '012[3-5]' range as
> > '[0123, 0126)' or something similar? What benefits do you see to
> > using a range for prefixes versus a regular expression?
>
> Your proposed syntax would do fine, sure. Something like this is even on
> the TODO list for prefix indexing, but for the internal representation,
> as I think there might be some optimisation potential there. Meanwhile,
> it would be easy enough to accept alternative input syntax.
Interesting example of a situation where the representation can be
optimized. I suspected that this was the case, but perhaps my example
wasn't as compelling:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-10/msg01842.php
This suggests that there should be some way for the user to specify
their own representation function.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2010-11-01 21:02:07 | Re: Complier warnings on mingw gcc 4.5.0 |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2010-11-01 20:32:18 | Re: SR fails to send existing WAL file after off-line copy |